Ian Sergeant <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Should we tag rural towns and localities as significant centres to > accurately reflect their role in the surrounding area, even when they have > a low population? > > + Yes, Some towns have very low population counts, but are very significant > administrative and service centres to the surrounding communities. They > are a real towns, and not just localities. We should reflect this reality > on the map with the place= tag.
You're asking people to make a subjective judgement here. This will vary greatly and cause arguments that can't really be settled. > Population data shouldn't be entered at all.. It just extra information to > get out of date, and it can be obtained elsewhere. Lets focus on what OSM > does best, mapping to reflect the reality on the ground. Population count is reality, and it's objective and hard to argue with. A compromise may be to note the population in the shire/county rather than just within the town itself. This often reflects its importance in the region. And of course the renderer may become smart enough to consider smaller places more important when they're a long way from other places. -- Sam Couter | mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] OpenPGP fingerprint: A46B 9BB5 3148 7BEA 1F05 5BD5 8530 03AE DE89 C75C
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
_______________________________________________ Talk-au mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
